Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28715491›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Towards the development of a comprehensive framework: Qualitative systematic survey of definitions of clinical research quality.

Belinda von Niederhäusern, Stefan Schandelmaier, Marie Mi Bonde, Nicole Brunner, Lars G Hemkens, Marielle Rutquist, Neera Bhatnagar, Gordon H Guyatt, Christiane Pauli-Magnus, Matthias Briel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Belinda von NiederhäusernClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Stefan SchandelmaierBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marie Mi BondeClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nicole BrunnerClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Lars G HemkensBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marielle RutquistClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Neera BhatnagarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Christiane Pauli-MagnusClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias BrielBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically survey existing definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality, both developed by stakeholder groups as well as in the medical literature. This study serves as a first step in the development of a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe systematically and in duplicate searched definitions, concepts and criteria of clinical research quality on websites of stakeholders in clinical research until no further insights emerged and in MEDLINE up to February 2015. Stakeholders included governmental bodies, regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, academic and commercial contract research organizations, initiatives, research ethics committees, patient organizations and funding agencies from 13 countries. Data synthesis involved descriptive and qualitative analyses following the Framework Method on definitions, concepts, and criteria of clinical research quality. Descriptive codes were applied and grouped into clusters to identify common and stakeholder-specific quality themes.

resultsStakeholder concepts on how to assure quality throughout study conduct or articles on quality assessment tools were common, generally with no a priori definition of the term quality itself. We identified a total of 20 explicit definitions of clinical research quality including varying quality dimensions and focusing on different stages in the clinical research process. Encountered quality dimensions include ethical conduct, patient safety/rights/priorities, internal validity, precision of results, generalizability or external validity, scientific and societal relevance, transparency and accessibility of information, research infrastructure and sustainability. None of the definitions appeared to be comprehensive either in terms of quality dimensions, research stages, or stakeholder perspectives.

conclusionClinical research quality is often discussed but rarely defined. A framework defining clinical research quality across stakeholders' individual perspectives is desirable to facilitate discussion, assessment, and improvement of quality at all stages of clinical research.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesBiomedical ResearchHumansQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID28715491
PMCPMC5513422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.